Radeon RX 460 vs Quadro P6000

Place in the ranking	109	434
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.89	1.12
Power efficiency	10.94	9.78
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GP102	Baffin
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 October 2016 (8 years ago)	8 August 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$5,999	$86

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P6000 has 247% better value for money than RX 460.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	3840	896
Core clock speed	1506 MHz	1090 MHz
Boost clock speed	1645 MHz	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	11,800 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	394.8	67.20
Floating-point processing power	12.63 TFLOPS	2.15 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	16
TMUs	240	56

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	267 mm	170 mm
Width	2" (5.1 cm)	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 8-pin	None
SLI options	+	-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	384 Bit	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	24 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1127 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 432 GB/s	112.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data
Multi-display synchronization	Quadro Sync II	no data
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync	-	+
ECC (Error Correcting Code)	+	no data
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
High-Performance Video I/O6	+	no data
nView Desktop Management	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	6.1	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro P6000 39.71
+273%

RX 460 10.65

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro P6000 15307
+273%

RX 460 4105

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	140−150 +250%	40 −250%
1440p	300−350 +266%	82 −266%
4K	70−75 +250%	20 −250%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	42.85	2.15
1440p	20.00	1.05
4K	85.70	4.30

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	34 +0%	34 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Hitman 3	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	54 +0%	54 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Battlefield 5	22 +0%	22 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	31 +0%	31 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Hitman 3	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	35 +0%	35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	17 +0%	17 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	41 +0%	41 +0%
Hitman 3	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	36 +0%	36 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 +0%	23 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33

+0%

30−33

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	25 +0%	25 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	13 +0%	13 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 +0%	12 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

This is how Quadro P6000 and RX 460 compete in popular games:

Quadro P6000 is 250% faster in 1080p
Quadro P6000 is 266% faster in 1440p
Quadro P6000 is 250% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	39.71	10.65
Recency	1 October 2016	8 August 2016
Maximum RAM amount	24 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt